Is a bow a "firearm"?

[jmowreader]

A magistrate judge in Idaho is deciding this right now. The cops in Oldtown, Idaho, hauled someone in for "unlawful possession of a firearm due to felony conviction." The subject was convicted of felony drug possession and of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter in 2006, not sure if it was at the same time. (He was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter for killing a man in a car crash, but convicted of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter.)

Under Idaho Code, it's illegal for anyone with a felony conviction to possess a firearm. The code also defines a firearm:

"A firearm is any weapon from which a shot, projectile or other object may be discharged by force of combustion, explosive, gas and/or mechanical means, whether operable or inoperable."

So...is a bow a firearm?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. mechanical means - seems to cover bows.

[frazzled]

4. Manual, not mechanical

me·chan·i·cal adjective \mi-ˈka-ni-kəl\
: of or relating to machinery

: having or using machinery

[awoke_in_2003]

19. If it is a compound bow...

it will be machinery- they use pulleys.

[frazzled]

20. Sure ... I was thinking of those ...

old-fashioned archery bows that they used to make us use in high-school gym class. I was horrible at it.

Of course, even a toy bow and arrow can be dangerous. Back in the 50s, little Stevie B. from next door shot one at my little brother and it did some damage. Fortunately, Stevie's mother was a nurse.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. Thinking about it...

a regular bow is just a big lever. Regardless, they are not firearms.

[tarheelsunc]

39. A lever by definition is a simple machine. Seems to fit the "mechanical" definition. eom

[awoke_in_2003]

44. Yes, but their definition is bunk...

fire is not involved in moving the projectile. They don't call them mechanical arms, they call them firearms.

[jmowreader]

88. Even a recurve would be a machine

It consists of two levers with a string between them.

[awoke_in_2003]

91. Yeah, I corrected that in another post...

regardless, their definition of firearm is bunk- unless, of course, they are shooting flaming arrows

[jberryhill]

25. Yes, a bow is a machine

A javelin or spear is manual.

Using a bow to launch an arrow is using a mechanical aid.

I don't know how you manage to post a circular definition and conclude a bow is not machinery.

It is a large leaf spring. A spring is not a mechanical device to you?

[frazzled]

28. It's powered manually

That's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking that in the general parlance, a bow is a weapon, but it's not a firearm. I think most people would think that.

Do you think a knife (such as the ones that were used in the recent Chinese attacks) is a firearm?

[Maedhros]

30. Ask any engineer - a bow is a machine.

Knife, no.

[X_Digger]

49. Actually, a knife is a double inclined plane..

.. concentrating applied force to a smaller surface area, like a wedge when splitting wood.

Heck, even a stick is a lever.

[Maedhros]

50. You're correct, but I think it's prudent to think of the law in terms of Archimedean simple machines

i.e. lever, pulley and screw.

Bows are levers; compound bows are levers and pulleys.

[X_Digger]

53. A screw is an inclined plane wrapped around an axis, but yeah, I get your point. n/t

[jberryhill]

60. Okay, I'll bite.....

"from which a shot, projectile or other object may be discharged by force of combustion, explosive, gas and/or mechanical means"

The reason we are discussing whether a bow is "mechanical means" has to do with the fact that the definition here is whether a bow constitutes such means "from which a shot, projectile or other object may be discharged".

How does a knife or stick figure into this?

[X_Digger]

63. It doesn't, I was just addressing one point.

It's a fun exercise to take a complex device and break it down into the simplest machines (lever, wheel, pulley, inclined plane, wedge, etc.)

[jberryhill]

35. So what? Most machines are powered manually

This is a machine:



To use it, you use your hand to tension a spring. When the spring unwinds, it does mechanical work.

Those two sentences also describe the operation of a bow. It is a spring. You use your hand to tension the spring, and when it unwinds it does mechanical work.

You gain a mechanical advantage with a bow, because you cannot apply that much force that quickly. Instead, the bow converts your long slow pull into a fast and powerful thrust. That kind of conversion is the very essence of what a "machine" is.

What "most people would think" has nothing to do with the Idaho statute that defines a firearm as something that fires a projectile by mechanical means.

That would exclude a spear, a javelin, a knife and other things which do not use mechanical means to fire a projectile.

Given that you ask about a knife, I'm not sure you understand the word "projectile".

[frazzled]

40. Oh, for ef's sake

Throw the guy in jail for owning a weapon he shouldn't have, but don't start arguing the common linguistic usage of "firearm," which involves shot and gunpowder, and is synonymous with revolver or rifle.

For purposes of Idaho law, perhaps the bow is defined as one of the prohibited weapons this felon is not allowed to have, and got lumped in under the category of "firearm" for that specific purpose. But to any normal English speaker, a bow is not a firearm, unless perhaps explosives are attached to the arrow.

Puhleeze.

[jberryhill]

41. What does "common lingustic usage" have to do with anything here?

When you have a statute that defines a word, then the only definition that matters is the one in the statute.

If a statute defines a "dog" as "a four legged mammal", then a cat is a dog, and an amputee dog is not a dog. It's not hard to understand.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Therefore a bicycle is not a machine?

A bow is a mechanism, specifically a pretensioned spring.

https://www.google.com/search?q=working+recurve+bow&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=AKAfU_GkDY2GogSTyYH4Cw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg&biw=1680&bih=925

[Warren Stupidity]

59. not mechanical would be you picking up an arrow and chucking it yourself.

As in a spear.

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. "...any weapon from which a projectile or other object may be discharged by mechanical means" n/t

[1000words]

2. According to the definition, yes.

But then again, draw back a rubber band on your thumb, and now your hand is a "firearm."

[rocktivity]

13. I agree -- a bow and arrow meets their definition of a "firearm"

Last edited Wed Jan 10, 2018, 01:28 PM - Edit history (5)

It's a weapon that operates "mechanically," and an arrow is definitely a "projectile." Similarly, spitballs, peas, and blowgun darts are projectiles are that are operated through straw or blowgun firearm "machines."

While a spear is certainly a projectile and a weapon, it is not a firearm because it is operated manually. A rubber band and a hand is neither a firearm nor a weapon because they're operated manually and not inherently harmful.


rocktivity

[NutmegYankee]

18. Lets round up the children...

Those damned felons with their illegal firearms

[kcr]

68. What do children have to do with it?

I thought the topic was felons?

[NutmegYankee]

69. A nerf gun technically meets the state definition of a firearm.

The children would be in possession of firearms.

[kcr]

70. You didn't answer my question

Why would children have to be rounded up? What do they have to do with it? ETA tahat no, it doesn't meet the definition. It isn't a weapon. It is a toy.

[NutmegYankee]

71. I did answer your question.

I was making a humorous point that the "legal" definition is absurd. Under that definition, parents have been sending their children outside with an air power projectile launching device (a firearm under law). It's a joke that we need to disarm them stat.

I chalk dumb laws like this to the Pi rule. A legislature could change Pi to be 3.0 in law, but Pi will still be 3.1456... despite the law. A firearm requires a chemical reaction.

[kcr]

72. What is absurd about it?

No, parents have been giving their children toys. That definition specified weapons.

[NutmegYankee]

73. Guess it depends on what one considers a weapon.

It's a non-lethal weapon, but it is intended to assault another person. Obviously for fun...

[kcr]

74. It's a toy.

Just like hotwheels aren't cars. Obviously for fun. Not intended for driving. Looks like a car. But not really cars.

[NutmegYankee]

75. And I say it's a weapon.

I guess we should give it to a judge in Idaho to figure out. I'd love to know that Genghis Khan conquered half the known world with a horde armed with firearms.

[kcr]

76. And I say I'm president of the world

Darn it, that didn't work. And nerf guns are still toys.

Who knows how a judge in Idaho will rule. Hopefully the right way, because a bow, unlike a nerf gun, is indeed a weapon. Really, this is a no brainer. Life in the good old US of A.

[NutmegYankee]

77. You missed the joke 5 posts ago.

*sigh*.

And no, a bow is not a firearm.

[kcr]

78. It meets their definition

And because we're talking about felons here, I don't understand the objection. We aren't talking about a blanket ban for all citizens, here. We're talking felons. Because gun powder isn't involved in the firing mechanism, we're okay with a felon having a deadly weapon? Insanity.

[NutmegYankee]

79. We'll he'll, just because their felons...

Let's define Pi as 3.0 and force them to use that for calculations. As for deadly weapons, better remove kitchen knives, baseball bats, cars, chainsaws, nail guns (holy shit it says gun), etc.

Sorry, I stay with the obvious. A bow is a weapon, but it is not a firearm. There's no fire!

Never mind that the felony in question was for drugs, which usually impact minorities as they get harsher penalties than white potheads.

[kcr]

81. You forgot bathtubs.

I read about a woman who dropped a can on her foot and died from the infection. Go ahead and add cans to your list of potential deadly weapons. Might as well go completely crazy. We should ban cans!!!1111

[NutmegYankee]

83. You're right we should!

You were going on about felons, but I did want to point out something. I don't support the felon disenfranchisement. Once you serve your time, you should have ALL rights restored.

Did you know that 1 in 13 African Americans cannot vote due to felony convictions? Or that in states like Virginia and Florida, it's 1 in every 5?

Did you know that right now there are gays men who cannot own a firearm because 50 years ago every state made sodomy a felony and they got caught having sex with another consenting adult?

Criticize me if you like, but I don't support disenfranchisement.

[kcr]

84. Voting rights? Absolutely.

Weapons. No. The answer to those unjustly convicted of laws based on bigotry is to have those convictions expunged. Not allow those with felony criminal records to have firearms.

[NutmegYankee]

85. That's a knee jerk reaction though.

What rationale is there to deny that right to those with non-violent felonies? There isn't any. And expungement isn't happening in many states. Those convicted of such travesties will die felons.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have to get to bed. Good night.

[kcr]

86. I wouldn't be opposed to saying non violent crimes could be exempt

If expungment isn't happening than that is wrong. But again. The answer isn't letting those who shouldn't have firearms have them.

[rocktivity]

92. A Nerf gun is neither a weapon nor a firearm

It's a toy, and more to the point, it's MEANT to be a toy.

The statute says, "Any WEAPON..."


rocktivity

[1000words]

26. A bicycle is operated manually

Definitely a machine, but worthless without a power source.

[windje]

82. Slingshots inNJ

In NJ a slingshot is covered by firearm statutes. SLINGSHOTS ARE OUTLAWED!!

[Vattel]

3. no it is not

An arrow is not "discharged by force of combustion, explosive, gas and/or mechanical means." A bow is not a machine and hence an arrow is not shot by mechanical means. Then again, some bows these days are practically machines. Now I am not sure. What kind of bow was it in this case?

[1000words]

5. Can you throw an arrow as far as a bow can launch it?

Of course it is a machine.

[Vattel]

10. is a slingshot a machine? a yo-yo?

Merriam Webster: a piece of equipment with moving parts that does work when it is given power from electricity, gasoline, etc.

[1000words]

22. Slingshot, yes.

Not sure about a yo-yo, but I'm going to assume so. Then again, what "work" is it completing?

Mind you, technically, a crowbar is a "machine." Block and tackle, too.

Good question, btw.

[Vattel]

51. Yeah I guess it is hard to avoid the conclusion that a bow is a machine.

I was wrong in thinking I could avoid that conclusion.

[jmowreader]

14. I don't think you can get anything but a compound bow in North Idaho

A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action. (Wikipedia definition)

A bow is a tool.

A bow contains one or more parts.

A bow uses energy (derived from the springiness of the limbs) to perform an intended action (accelerating an arrow toward a target).

Therefore, a bow is a machine.

[Vattel]

16. nah

The problem is that machine has multiple definitions. On some, bows are machines, on others they are not.

[NuclearDem]

17. It's all a matter of definition.

By the scientific definition of machine, a bow is a machine.

The Idaho law is badly written if it includes bows.

[Vattel]

45. I don't think the scientific definition is the relevant one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. In the absence of a legal definition of "mechanical" then I think it is. n/t

[flamin lib]

6. A bow is a lever. A lever is a simple macnine . nt

[NutmegYankee]

7. Common sense tells you it is not.

Otherwise the Roman Empire had firearms.

On a more modern example, nerf guns are air pumped projectiles and a spitwad launcher is air powered. Both are routinely used by children. Are they using illegal firearms?

[NuclearDem]

8. Of course it's not a firearm.

The whole concept of "firearm" is an armament that discharges through "fire", i.e. explosive powder and anything that's descended from that design.

A bow is in no way a firearm.

[RebelOne]

11. It may not be a firearm,

but it is still a weapon which can kill or seriously harm a person.

[NuclearDem]

15. No argument there.

But they're nowhere near the killing machine of an actual firearm.

[sarisataka]

9. Interesting question

if a fishing law defines a fish as any animal which propels itself through water and has a tail, is a Labrador retriever then a fish?

I think under the legal definition he may be in trouble, though nearly no one would say a bow is a firearm.

[aikoaiko]

12. By that definition, yes. Otherwise, no.

[Lizzie Poppet]

21. Nope. No fire.

In this legal matter, under Idaho's sweeping definition, it certainly can be considered the equivalent of a firearm...but it's not technically a firearm. The "fire" part of the term has a literal meaning (and origin). It's why I roll my eyes when someone says "fire an arrow."

Unless it's a flaming arrow... =P

[NYC_SKP]

24. Not sure, it might be "ghost gun"!

I never get tired of this guy's total cluelessness.

[H2O Man]

27. Surely many are.

A bow is an intense weapon.

[marions ghost]

29. Crossbows are considered deadly weapons

but not a firearm. Probably what it's about. Definitely lethal weaponry.

At Cabela's you can get a thing that converts your AR-15 into a crossbow:

Shoots bolts up to 405 fps
Quickly turn your AR-15 into a powerful crossbow
Anti-dry-fire mechanism for safety
Package includes three PSE bolts, bipod, 3-9x42 multireticle scope



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SW-mKBW2ymE/UnEdhUdDbHI/AAAAAAAAAeY/_1BCeCLw76Q/s400/JA+Zambian+Sable.jpg

[TXPaganBanker]

31. Showing my age but...

Wasn't the whole reason why Bo and Luke Duke used bows is because they weren't firearms, and Uncle Jesse didn't want them getting in trouble for carrying firearms? (Looked it up, they were both on probation for running moonshine. Legally, they couldn't carry firearms, but could carry bows)

Also, thinking about it, my uncle (here in Texas) was a convicted felon, and wasn't able to own a gun, but he bow hunted (legally) with my grandfather every year. So, that's how they do it here in Texas.

As for the law there, I think it's written poorly. A bow is a pair of levers, which by scientific definition is a simple machine (A complex machine would require moving parts, but would not require electricity or combustion). When I think "firearm" however, I think of something that uses compressed gas (through ignition of gunpowder) to force a projectile down a path.

I don't think bows, crossbows, blow guns, compressed air guns, sling shots, spear guns, atlatl, Apache rock throwers, slings, sling spears, trebuchet, catapult, ballistae, and the like should be included in the law.

[frazzled]

32. Was just going to use the Dukes of Hazard defense, too.

It makes as much sense as any other.

[cthulu2016]

33. Under that law, probably... but don't overlook "discharge"

"or mechanical means" seems to cover a bow, but one would have to examine the definition of "discharged" in that context, in law.

"Discharge" may require containment, which a bow would not have. In almost every sense of discharge, X is discharged from Y which previously contained X. It is not obvious that an arrow is contained in a bow prior to "discharge" or than an arrow comes "out of" a bow.

A crossbow bolt, being fixed in place within a rather complex apparatus, would be more arguably discharged, to me.

And since "firearm" has a sensible plain-language meaning it would be right to examine the matter closely.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. I think that's more likely to be the word this turns on

The operation of a bow comes under the normal scientific definition of 'mechanics' - storing elastic energy and using it to launch a projectile. But you're right that 'discharge' may require something to have been 'charged' first. However, we have, in the OED defintion of 'discharge':
1726 Pope tr. Homer Odyssey V. xxii. 276 Let each at once discharge the deadly dart.
1839 G. M. Bussey Forster's Arabian Nights Entertainm. 306/2 The king, my father, discharged an arrow, which pierced his breast.

[oldhippie]

34. Our local city ordinance .....

.... that pertains to discharging a firearm within city limits specifically defines "firearms" as including longbows, recurve bows, compound bows, crossbows and slingshots.

It all depends on the definition in the particular statute. The one you cited mentions mechanical devices. A bow of any type is a mechanical devise, ergo, a firearm by its own definition.

Stupid, if you ask me. But they don't.

[stevenleser]

36. There is no question. Under those definitions a bow is a firearm. nt

[Cleita]

37. Maybe a cross bow. Don't think the string twanging variety could be called

that or you would be calling your arm a fire arm for throwing a spear, a harpoon or a dart.

[Vattel]

46. exactly. the definitions under which a bow is a machine have absurd consequences.

So any decent judge will consider alternative definitions such as the one I quoted above from Merriam Webster.

[bluedigger]

38. By that statute, perhaps, but not in common usage.

Bows and firearms are both projectile weapons - same class, different families.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. According to that definition

yes it is.

Though I would quibble about redefining a word to the point of nonsense.

[Iggo]

43. It's a projectile weapon.

[Zorra]

48. Yes. Is this a problem? Sincerely, Katniss Everdeen. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

52. According to that statute it is, but that doesn't jive with federal law.

[Vattel]

54. Yes it is. And my earlier post which said "no it is not" is clearly wrong.

(I am assuming the definition of "firearm" used in the relevant law.)

[countryjake]

55. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be shot by one...

that answers your question for me.

[30cal]

56. 1. Can a person prohibited by law from possessing a firearm acquire and use a black powder

So he could own and carry a black powder rifle or pistol but not a bow?









1. Can a person prohibited by law from possessing a firearm acquire and use a black powder muzzle loading firearm?
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) prohibits felons and certain other persons from possessing or receiving firearms and ammunition (“prohibited persons”). These categories can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and (n) in http://atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf.
However, Federal law does not prohibit these persons from possessing or receiving an antique firearm. The term “antique firearm” means any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898. The definition includes any replica of an antique firearm if it is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or uses rimfire or conventional centerfire ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States, and which is not readily available in ordinary channels of commercial trade. Further, any muzzle loading rifle, shotgun, or pistol which is designed to use black powder or black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition, is an “antique firearm” unless it (1) incorporates a firearm frame or receiver; (2) is a firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon; or (3) is a muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), (a)(16).
Thus, a muzzle loading weapon that meets the definition of an “antique firearm” is not a firearm and may lawfully be received and possessed by a prohibited person under the GCA. In addition, the GCA defines the term “ammunition” to mean “ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm.” Because an “antique firearm” is not a “firearm,” it would is lawful for a prohibited person to receive or possess black powder designed for use in an “antique firearm

[jmowreader]

89. According to Idaho law, he could not

According to the Idaho Code, a felon can't even possess a broken firearm.

[derby378]

57. A bow is not a firearm, and hang the Idaho Code

It's time for a little common sense to enter the picture. If you don't have educated and scientifically-literate legislators, expect nonsense like this in the lawbooks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. According to that definition, yes

I take issue with it, but that is another matter

[struggle4progress]

61. Idaho Statutes

TITLE 18 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 33 FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS

18-3316. Unlawful possession of a firearm. (1) A person who previously has been convicted of a felony who purchases, owns, possesses, or has under his custody or control any firearm shall be guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a period of time not to exceed five (5) years and by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, "convicted of a felony" shall include a person who has entered a plea of guilty, nolo contendere or has been found guilty of any of the crimes enumerated in section 18-310, Idaho Code, or to a comparable felony crime in another state, territory, commonwealth, or other jurisdiction of the United States.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, "firearm" shall include any weapon from which a shot, projectile or other object may be discharged by force of combustion, explosive, gas and/or mechanical means, whether operable or inoperable ...

http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH33SECT18-3316.htm

Determining the answer to the question might require researching the legislative record and prior case law, but the bare language of the statute suggests a felon could be prosecuted for possession of not only a bow but even a slingshot or peashooter

[struggle4progress]

62. Can a felon hunt with a bow in Idaho? (Idaho Fish and Game website)

It depends on the felony. Under Idaho law, anyone convicted of any of 36 felonies may not own, use or carry a firearm, which the law defines as "any weapon from which a shot, projectile or other object may be discharged by force of combustion, explosive, gas and/or mechanical means, whether operable or inoperable." That would include a bow. The right can under some circumstances be restored, unless the crime was murder in the first or second degree, or if conviction included the use of a firearm in the commission of any the listed felonies. (For a list of felonies see Idaho Code Title 18, Chapter 3, section 18-310.)
https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/question/can-felon-hunt-bow-idaho


TITLE 18 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF PUNISHMENT IN GENERAL
18-310. Imprisonment -- Effect on civil rights and offices ...
... (2) Upon final discharge, a person convicted of any Idaho felony shall be restored the full rights of citizenship, except that for persons convicted of treason or those offenses enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (jj) of this subsection the right to ship, transport, possess or receive a firearm shall not be restored ...
(a) aggravated assault (18-905, 18-915, Idaho Code);
(b) aggravated battery (18-907, 18-915, Idaho Code);
(c) assault with intent to commit a serious felony (18-909, 18-915, Idaho Code);
(d) battery with intent to commit a serious felony (18-911, 18-915, Idaho Code);
(e) burglary (18-1401, Idaho Code);
(f) crime against nature (18-6605, Idaho Code);
(g) domestic battery, felony (18-918, Idaho Code);
(h) enticing of children, felony (18-1509, Idaho Code);
(i) forcible sexual penetration by use of a foreign object (18-6608, Idaho Code);
(j) indecent exposure, felony (18-4116, Idaho Code);
(k) injury to child, felony (18-1501, Idaho Code);
(l) intimidating a witness, felony (18-2604, Idaho Code);
(m) lewd conduct with a minor or child under sixteen (18-1508, Idaho Code);
(n) sexual abuse of a child under sixteen (18-1506, Idaho Code);
(o) sexual exploitation of a child (18-1507, Idaho Code);
(p) felonious rescuing prisoners (18-2501, Idaho Code);
(q) escape by one charged with, convicted of or on probation for a felony (18-2505, Idaho Code);
(r) unlawful possession of a firearm (18-3316, Idaho Code);
(s) degrees of murder (18-4003, Idaho Code);
(t) voluntary manslaughter (18-4006(1), Idaho Code);
(u) assault with intent to murder (18-4015, Idaho Code);
(v) administering poison with intent to kill (18-4014, Idaho Code);
(w) kidnapping (18-4501, Idaho Code);
(x) mayhem (18-5001, Idaho Code);
(y) rape (18-6101, Idaho Code);
(z) male rape (18-6108, Idaho Code);
(aa) robbery (18-6501, Idaho Code);
(bb) ritualized abuse of a child (18-1506A, Idaho Code);
(cc) cannibalism (18-5003, Idaho Code);
(dd) felonious manufacture, delivery or possession with the intent to manufacture or deliver, or possession of a controlled or counterfeit substance (37-2732, Idaho Code);
(ee) trafficking (37-2732B, Idaho Code);
(ff) threats against state officials of the executive, legislative or judicial branch, felony (18-1353A, Idaho Code);
(gg) unlawful discharge of a firearm at a dwelling house, occupied building, vehicle or mobile home (18-3317, Idaho Code);
(hh) unlawful possession of destructive devices (18-3319, Idaho Code);
(ii) unlawful use of destructive device or bomb (18-3320, Idaho Code);
(jj) attempt (18-306, Idaho Code), conspiracy (18-1701, Idaho Code), or solicitation (18-2001, Idaho Code), to commit any of the crimes described in paragraphs (a) through (ii) of this subsection.
(kk) The provisions of this subsection shall apply only to those persons convicted of the enumerated felonies in paragraphs (a) through (jj) of this subsection on or after July 1, 1991, except that persons convicted of the felonies enumerated in paragraphs (s) and (t) of this subsection, for any degree of murder or voluntary manslaughter, shall not be restored the right to ship, transport, possess or receive a firearm regardless of the date of their conviction if the conviction was the result of an offense committed by use of a firearm ...
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH3SECT18-310.htm

[jmowreader]

90. I wonder when the last violation of 18-5003 was

[Brigid]

65. Let's ask this guy:

[img][/img]

[jschurchin]

80. Acording to that definition.

Yes.

[Paladin]

87. A prime example of piss-poor legislative drafting. (nt)